session t1b an opportunity thinktank in first year...

Session T1B

7th First Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference August 3 – 4, 2015, Roanoke, VA T1B-1

An Opportunity Thinktank in First Year Engineering

Rob Gettens, Harlan Spotts, and Jose Riofrio

Western New England University, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract – This paper outlines a portion of a comprehensive first year engineering program that incorporates innovation and entrepreneurship. A series of seven independent yet interconnected modules focus on teaching students a series of skills in the area of opportunity recognition. The modules can be used in any number of open-ended design projects. In this particular case the modules were used to guide student teams in finding and refining opportunities for an open ended “smart” design project based on the Arduino microcontroller as a platform. The Opportunity Thinktank involves teaching students how to research areas providing a foundation upon which ideation and design takes place. This then expands students experience beyond the traditional engineering design process into the areas of innovation and entrepreneurship. Upon the conclusion of the Thinktank students are prepared to begin an engineering design process. The seven modules of the Opportunity Thinktank include: 1) Discovering the Entrepreneurial mindset, 2) Integrating Information, 3) Researching Trends, 4) Observing behaviors, 5) Interviewing for empathy, 6) Unpacking and synthesizing data and 7) Preparing for innovation. Index Terms – Opportunity Recognition, Smart Design Projects, Trends, Observation, Interviewing.

INTRODUCTION

In the fall semester at Western New England University first year engineering students learn core engineering skills and concepts including CAD, engineering communications, basic statistics, engineering ethics and an engineering design process in the Introduction to Engineering Course. The focus of this course is engineering design and it culminates in a four challenge ‘bot competition. This paper, however, will focus on the second semester in which students turn towards entrepreneurship in creating open-ended “smart projects”. Innovation and Entrepreneurship skills are delivered to students using Problem Based Learning (PBL), Entrepreneurial Minded Learning (EML) and Active and Collaborative learning (ACL) techniques. Instead of providing the students with specific prescribed tasks as in the first semester, in the spring semester students formulate their own need and problem statements, and apply an engineering design process in order to produce and demonstrate a working prototype of a “smart” product. To

qualify as “smart”, the end product must involve some combination of sensors, actuators and programmable functionality (Figure 1). At the end of the semester, there is an “Expo” event where each team of 3 or 4 students shows their working prototype alongside a poster and accompanied by a well-rehearsed 60-second elevator pitch (Figure 2). This event is locally advertised and well-attended by local high schools as well as business owners and entrepreneurs, several of which are asked ahead of time to serve as judges.

Figure 1: Sample Smart Projects from Spring 2014. Left:“The Gimball Buddy” – a device to maintain desired camera

orientation. Right: “The Foot Mouse” – enabling normal computing to arm amputees.

Figure 2: Team “Smart Solar Water Heater” posing for a group photo during the 2014 Emerging Engineers Exhibition.

One of the most important and defining steps in the Engineering Design Process is obtaining a good need and problem statement. This is also a step which students tend to rush through if not carefully guided. Often, students have “pet” projects which they are eager to pursue, but which tend to bypass need and problem formulation as well as some other key steps in the Engineering Design Process. It is therefore best (both in terms of meeting the course objectives and increasing the quality of the projects) for students to approach the need, problem and concept generation portion with an open mind. This is also essential for a more successful and rewarding experience of the entrepreneurial process, since it can make students more likely to recognize and address big-picture societal and/or market needs. The focus of this paper is a series of seven

Session T1B


modules called the “opportunity thinktank” used to help guide students in finding opportunities to pursue for the open ended projects. This “opportunity thinktank” then gives students a “toolbox” of skills and begins to instill a mindset in the area of entrepreneurship. It should be noted that the genesis of the smart design project idea was derived from Louisiana Tech’s Living with the Lab program [1]. The “Thinktank” provides the preparation required for identifying great, new design solutions. It involves research that provides a foundation upon which ideation and design can take place. This is an introduction to a different way of thinking than students are used to in traditional engineering. Looking for opportunities requires examining the marketplace through an entrepreneurial minded lens to identify the most pressing problems. This entrepreneurial mindset focuses on understanding and empathizing with the client facing the problem. This understanding provides the foundation on which ideation takes place, we call them “bugs.” Bugs, or pain points, refers to situations where consumers, or an organization, have an unsatisfied need that creates a level of frustration. If the opportunity and the client are not fully understood, much ideation and design time will be wasted generating marginal and incremental solutions destined for the dust bin. The Thinktank begins with students observing the world around them for pain points of consumers, business or society in general; this is a micro to macro examination and we will generally refer to any one of these areas as the “client.” After identifying opportunities for which a design solution may be suitable focus shifts to understanding their client. Often students, not just engineering, are given a problem and they want to start generating ideas before they fully understand the problem or their client’s experience. Collecting backstory information on their client begins with research to understand the appropriate behaviors to observe and questions to ask. The process then moves to observing the client’s pain point experience. Observing is not enough, students need to at least talk with the client and, if possible, experience the pain point themselves. Through this process students re-frame problem statements. The Thinktank concludes with a final revision and refinement of the problem statement that reflects their empathetic understanding of their client’s pain point and preparation for the next phase of the process, ideation.

The Opportunity Thinktank The Opportunity Thinktank consists of seven modules that can be used as a mini-course or stand-alone sessions to help engineering students prepare for the ideation process.

Module 1: Discovering the Entrepreneurial Mindset This is the first of seven modules in the Opportunity Thinktank that is designed to provide the foundation, preparing students for refining problem statements, enhancing idea generation, and improving the quality of ideas for design projects. This module establishes a firm understanding of the “entrepreneurial mindset;” that focuses

on stimulating curiosity, making connections and identifying opportunity gaps; all with the objective of creating value for the client. The module 1 lesson plan incorporates a case study while introducing several specific entrepreneurial skills that students can later apply to an ongoing project (Figure 3). The mindset characteristics sought in the module are to instill a sense of “Brimming with Curiosity”, “Courting Serendipity” and “Cultivating Randomness” [2]. The module begins with an overview of the entrepreneurial mindset [3] followed by lessons on specific skills including client pain points, the use of the 5 whys [4] and the P.O.V. mad-lib [5]. Following the presentation of these techniques a clip from the television show SharkTank is shown and students practice the demonstrated techniques using the SharkTank case study as an example. The specific case study shown in the module is the “BZ box” episode [6]. This is an exercise in seeing how point of view truly changes the problem statement. At the end of the in-class session student teams are given current newspapers to search for potential project ideas. Their individual homework assignment is to produce a list of 12 “bugs.” These “bugs” must come from the newspapers or by interviewing non-students for potential opportunities. This is done to eliminate redundant ideas solely centered on the college lifestyle.

Figure 3: Schematic overview of the module one lesson plan. The banner at the top emphases the main mindset characteristics meant to be conveyed in the module. The lessons and specific skills then

map to an ongoing case study of the Shark Tank, B.Z. box. Follow on project activities are below.

Figure 4: Schematics shown to students in teaching the 5 whys and point of view Mad-lib techniques. These figures are shown in

a slide show followed by a video.

Sparkol brand video-scribing software was used to create a video for students to review at a later time. The video highlights the main takeaways from module. Snapshots of

Session T1B


the video are seen in Figure 4. The video can be given to students to view for homework or can be shown at the start of the next class period as a refresher on the key lessons from module one. Module 1 continues into a second class meeting where student teams share, combine, eliminate and refine their potential bugs. Students first share all potential opportunities, pain points or “bugs” and write them on post-it notes. Teams with four students should generate at least 48 potential ideas, which are then stuck to a wall (Figure 5). Students then combine and group like ideas and vote for top bugs using stickers. They are each given 12 stickers to be used to vote for their favorite bugs. Students are instructed that they can spread their voting stickers as they see fit, multiple stickers can be put on one good bug for example (Figure 5). All post-it note bugs are then removed except for the 12 with the most votes. Students then perform a 5-whys analysis on each of the remaining 12 “bugs.” All students on the team then vote again for the top four bugs, with each student having four votes to be cast in the same manner as the prior vote. Teams must then complete an out of class assignment to frame their bugs by performing the P.O.V. mad-lib exercise on the remaining four “bugs”. At this point the module 2 lesson plan may begin.

Figure 5: Students voting on the “bug” lists. First students write “bugs” or opportunities on post it notes and then students vote on

“bugs” they’d like to pursue further by voting with stickers.

Module 2: Discovering the Entrepreneurial Mindset: Information Integration

The second module in the Opportunity Thinktank focuses on understanding the importance of doing research, examining the core content of “Integrating information from many sources to gain insight.” This module focuses on training one new skill set, using the Phoenix Checklist. It should also be noted that student teams are told that they can add new opportunity ideas or “pivot” to related opportunities as they make new discoveries through the process. The process is meant to facilitate new opportunity generation and not be burdensome or stifling. Module 2 begins with a reiteration of the premise of “Integrating information from many sources to gain insight” and it is noted we can do this at both large and small scales. The KEEN framewok has refined their conceptualization of the entrepreneurial mindset to focus on making connections [3], which the process of conducting research and integrating information allows students to do. Two brainteasers are used to introduce the Phoenix checklist [7].

The first brain teaser should be an optical illusion. Any number of optical illusions can be shown, the McGurk effect is particularly effective if ample time is available in the class period [8]. The main point to be conveyed is that things are not as they always seem, stressing the importance of research. The next brain teaser should involve a memory test. The memory test can involve asking students to memorize a certain number of digits or any similar memory test. The main point to convey is that we can only remember a certain amount of information, emphasizing the importance of checklists in guiding the process. The Phoenix checklist is then introduced with a history of its creation by the C.I.A. Students are given a Phoenix checklist blue print and begin filling in the template for the remaining four “bugs” during the class period. This part of the process is completed as an out-of-class assignment due the following class period. Teams also submit a memo summarizing the main facts gathered from the process. A Sparkol wrap-up video on module two is given to students to view for homework.

Module 3: Wading into Shallow Waters: Trends

Module 3 establishes a starting point for collecting information from secondary sources to help with the process of making connections and opportunity identification. The importance of looking at information from both small and large scales is stressed. This module is specifically designed to target large scale trends which can be gathered from secondary sources. Prior to moving forward with the lesson students participate in a think-pair-share active collaborative learning (ACL) activity [9] in reviewing the results of the Phoenix checklist from module 2. The lesson continues with an overview of secondary information sources including web based research, government sources, syndicated sources and library databases. It is stressed that in order to perform quality ideation and to make worthy decisions on which opportunity to pursue students must “stock the shelves” or collect as much information about each opportunity as possible. Four major questions that must be asked about each opportunity while conducting secondary research are presented, which are: 1. Who is my end user/customer with the problem? 2. What are the current solutions for their problem? 3. What is the current state of technology for solving this

problem? 4. What trends affect the user and their problem? Students are shown two sources to get at the first question, the U.S. government census website (www.cencus.gov) and the market segmentation service “Prizm” from the Nielsen company [10]. If time allows students can research their own hometown market segmentation. In order to answer question 2 students are directed to use Google.Finance, the U.S. patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website, and the syndicated database from Marketresearch.com. For

Session T1B


question 3 Google.Patent and the USPTO patent search functions are presented. In order to address trends affecting users the “Trend Hunter” website is shown [11]. A video presenting the top trends of the year is shown. A homework assignment is given to collect secondary information on each of the four remaining “bugs” and present the information in a memo. Students are also presented with a simple decision matrix to assist them in choosing the most promising opportunity. The decision matrix is then added to the homework memo assignment along with a rank ordering of the top three opportunities. After the memo is submitted the instructor, along with the team’ decides on one “bug” to pursue for the remainder of the project. Again, “pivoting” is encouraged.

Module 4: Diving in Head First: Observing Behaviors This module gets to the core of the IDEO concept with the introduction of observational and ethnographic skills to understand the client pain point. The topics are introduced through a series of videos available from Stanford Univeristy’s eCorner [12]. Of note are the videos of David Kelley, Tom Kelley and Jessica Mah which directly address the need for observational study. The camera study technique is also described in this module [13]. Following the videos, tips for conducting observational research are given including:

1. Set the scene 2. Observe physical space 3. Observe the people 4. Observe group interactions 5. Observe non-verbal behaviors 6. Just the facts 7. Record with your hands and tools 8. Zero in on the unexpected

A worksheet is provided to help students record their observations during the research ( Figure 1). For the out-of-class assignment students are required to conduct observational research on the “bug” they are now pursuing. This assignment is given in conjunction with the next module, Module 5: Interviewing for Empathy, so that student teams have ample time to collect the necessary information.

Figure 1: Observational research worksheet provided to students to facilitate observational research. The back of the form is

adopted from Stanford’s d-school bootcamp bootleg [5].

Module 5: Diving Deeper: Interviewing for Empathy An interview may look like a simple conversation to the casual observer, but interviews are a conversation with a purpose. The interview process must follow a structured format and be administered in an efficient and effective manner. Students must know that a client’s time is valuable and this time must be used in the most effective manner. The interview process begins with brainstorming questions. Students individually generate questions they feel are related to their specific bug drawing upon the information the team collected in their secondary and observational research. They then meet with their team (Think-Share) and collate all their questions, removing those that are redundant. The team reviews each question, discussing what type of information is collected and if that information will be helpful in better understanding the bug. Guidelines are provided for question structure, such as “do not have questions with more than ten words;” or, “make sure a question is not "double barrelled“ (asking for more than one answer in a single question). It is important to remember that the end result of the Opportunity Thinktank is a properly framed problem that will help guide the solution ideation process. The result of this process is the creation of an interview guide that can be used by all students in the team. This is important for standardizing the data collection process and generating more consistent and valid information. At this point in the module, students are provided guidelines on how to administer the interview (Figures 7). Students split into pairs and engage in mock interviews as practice.

Figure 7: The interview process, adopted from [11].

Module 6: Emptying the Net: Unpacking and Synthesizing Data

At this point the students should be swimming in data, and keeping with our diving metaphor it is time to "empty the net" and examine the collected information from the team research activities. Figuratively, and in some instances, literally, the information is poured onto a table and the team searches for patterns that will help them better understand their client’s pain point. Module 6 begins with the four questions to guide information collection posed in Module 3:

1. Who is my end user/customer with the problem? 2. What are the current solutions for their problem?

Session T1B


3. What is the current state of technology for solving the problem?

4. What trends affect the user and their problem?

Each of these questions is investigated using different techniques designed for examining the data collected earlier in the Thinktank. It is here that students will unpack and synthesize the information they found through secondary, observation and interview research. Since pain points reflect frustrations that people have, we start with the first question to gain a better understanding and empathize with the client. Using whiteboards or flipcharts, teams can begin with a Journey Map [14]. A journey map helps students understand the overall experience a client has with a particular frustration. It starts using a process perspective, beginning with the first point at which the client realizes that they have a frustration, and then adds the subsequent steps taken to resolve the problem with a current solution. It is expected that the current solution (if there is one) is inadequate, leading to a state of sub-equilibrium. It is here that student should seek to develop empathy for client's experience. After sketching out the process, students next construct Empathy Maps [14]. This technique provides understanding of a variety of different client characteristics for whom they are going to design a solution. Empathy Maps are divided into four quadrants (see Figure 6, back). Armed with a stack of Post-it notes, students record different pieces of information on a single sheet and classify them into one of four quadrants: Think, Feel, Say, Do. Think reflects client thoughts and beliefs, Feel their feelings and emotions, Say their quotes or defining words, and Do their actions and behaviors. Using Post-it notes makes it easy to move information from one quadrant to another as the team reviews the information.

Figure 8: Why-How Ladder, adopted from [5]. It is important that students complete their empathy maps on a whiteboard, wall or flip chart. This makes it easier for the team to step back and observe patterns in the information. As patterns emerge, the notes can be re-arranged to make better sense of the client and their pain point. Two important outputs from this analysis are the identification of Needs and Insights [5]. Needs are considered to be necessities, be they emotional, psychological or physiological. Insights may be considered

an AHA! moment, where students learn something about their client that they did not know and gain a deeper understanding of the pain point. These insights will be important for framing the problem and designing solutions. The list of needs can be further explored using a Why-How Ladder [5] (see Figure 8). This technique, similar to the 5 Whys presented in Module 1, provides a structured process to more deeply explore the needs of the customer. This process drills down to root causes of pain points, providing added insight when designing solutions. After completing the first two synthesis activities the team is now ready to share and create stories. This activity begins with each team member sharing a story they collected from a client they observed or interviewed. The sharing of stories makes the client tangible and real. Other team members are encouraged to ask questions, probing deeper into each story. Once all team members have told their story, the team creates a single story based on all the information collected. This story conveys the pain point experience the client is experiencing in a particular situation. The act of creating a story helps the team better understand and empathize with their client. Teams can have individual members write stories and combine them into a single story, or work on the story in a team collaboration. The second and third questions focused on current solutions to the pain point and the state of technology. A good technique to organize information is a 2x2 Matrix. This technique is relatively simple and helps to identify market patterns and open spaces of opportunities. For the second question, teams start by looking at all of the current solutions and classifying them on two dimensions. For example, a set of current pain point solutions may be organized by cost (high versus low) and difficulty (easy versus hard). Using the whiteboard and Post-its, teams plot the solutions looking for interesting patterns that identify spaces of opportunity. The same process can be used for the third question when assessing the current state of technology. It is also possible to apply the Journey Map with minor changes when looking at technology. This adapted map would look at the evolution of technology up to its current state. The last question focuses on consumer trends, which were organized in tabular form as part of the activity for Module 3. The team can use similar 2x2 matrices to classify different trends and help to prioritize them in terms of importance or concern.

Module 7: Framing the Problem and Preparing for Ideation

Teams now have collected and synthesized the critical information they need to frame the problem, the last step before engaging in solution ideation. All teams should have a Journey Map, an Empathy Map, a story that reflects the client’s experience and persona, a list of needs and insights, and deeper understanding of the situation than when they started.

Session T1B


The process now begins with the initial Point-of-View Madlib created in Module 1. This should be an iterative process that has each team member constructing their own POV Madlib, then sharing it with the rest of the team. Individual team member madlibs are then combined into a single problem frame. Teams can further investigate their POV using a Critical Reading Checklist [14]. This activity helps to focus the POV and ensure that it reflects the insight gained during the research phase and is meaningful. The process has the team discuss the four primary questions, after which the POV will likely be revised to enhance its focus and relevance. Once the problem has been framed, teams can use another technique to examine the problem from different perspectives, the Reframing Matrix [14] (see Figure 9). The original conception of this matrix is slightly different from the one shown in Figure 9, which used the perspective labels of product, planning, potential and people. This analysis can use any perspectives that the team would like to explore before engaging in ideation. Looking at a problem from different perspectives helps shed light on issues the team may not have thought about, and identify potential constraints that will need to be taken into consideration when evaluation potential pain point solutions.

Figure 9: Reframing matrix, adopted from [14]. At this point teams should have a well-defined and focused POV, with all team member clearly understanding the customer's pain point and the different factors that must be considered when designing solutions.

CONCLUSION

The Opportunity Thinktank brings together and introduces undergraduate engineering students to critical knowledge in entrepreneurship, marketing and research methods they may not be exposed to in the standard engineering curriculum. Student self-reporting assessment indicates that students who took part in the Opportunity Thinktank gained a greater confidence in their ability/knowledge in the following areas:

• Investigating a Market • Examining technical feasibility, customer value,

societal benefits and economic viability • Creating models and prototypes • Validating designs

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The Opportunity Thinktank was made possible through a Topical Grant awarded by the Kern Family Foundation through the Kern Engineering Entrepreneurship Network (KEEN).

REFERENCES

[1] Hall, D., Cronk, S., Brackin, P., Barker, M., Crittenden, K., “Living With The Lab: A Curriculum To Prepare Freshman Students To Meet The Attributes Of "The Engineer Of 2020”, 2008 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 22-25, Pittsburgh, PA. [2] Hoffman, Reid and Ben Casnocha, "5 Tips for Generating Breakout Opportunities," Entreprenuer, (June 19, 2012), accessed May 23, 2014 at http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/223716. [3] KEEN Engineering Unleashed: Why KEEN? KEENzine. http://www.kffdn.org/files/keenzine-2-framework.pdf accessed March 5, 2015. [4] Serrat, O., “The Five Whys Technique”, Knowledge Solutions, Asian Development Bank, Feb 2009. [5] The Bootcamp Bootleg, D. School, Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2014. [6] “BZ Box”, Shark Tank, Episode 527, ABC, May 16, 2014, television. [7] Michalko, Michael. Thinkertoys: A handbook of creative thinking techniques, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Ten Speed Press (2006). [8] “Is Seeing Beliving?”, Horizons, BBC Two, May 18, 2010, television. [9] Gerhart, A., “Campus-wide Course Modification Program to Implement Active & Collaborative Learning and Problem-based Learning to Address the Entrepreneurial Mindset”, 2013 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 23-26, Atlanta, GA. [10] The Nielsen Company (2015), My Best Segments, [online], available: http://www.claritas.com/MyBestSegments/Default.jsp. [11] Trend Hunter, inc. (2015), Trend Hunter: Find Better Ideas Faster, [online], available: www.trendhunter.com. [12] Stanford University (2015), ecorner: Stanford University’s Entrepreneuship Corner, [online], available: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/. [13] Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford University, Stanford, CA: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license,visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. [14] Morgan, Michael. Creating Workforce Innovation: Turning Individual Creativity into Organizational Innovation. Sydney: Allen and Unwin (1993).

session t1b an opportunity thinktank in first year...

Documents